Action Alert -- H.J. RES 56 ** NOW HAS 96 Co-Sponsors ** !! -- ACTION ALERT !!!

David C. Osborne ^ | 25 October 2003 | David C. Osborne

[davidosborne]

H.J.RES.56 Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Sponsor:
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [R-CO-4]
(introduced 5/21/2003) Cosponsors: 96 Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COSPONSORS(96), BY DATE [order is left to right]: (Sort: alphabetical order) Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 5/21/2003 [D-TX-4] Rep McIntyre, Mike - 5/21/2003 [D-NC-7] Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 5/21/2003 [D-MN-7] Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 5/21/2003 [R- VA-1] Rep Vitter, David - 5/21/2003 [R- LA-1] Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 6/2/2003 [R- PA-16] Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 6/2/2003 [R- MD-6] Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 6/2/2003 [R- VA-5] Rep Wilson, Joe - 6/2/2003 [R- SC-2] Rep Weldon, Dave - 6/2/2003 [R- FL-15] Rep Pence, Mike - 6/10/2003 [R- IN-6] Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [R- OK-5] Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [R- NC-3] Rep Ryun, Jim - 6/10/2003 [R- KS-2] Rep Johnson, Sam - 6/10/2003 [R- TX-3] Rep DeMint, Jim - 6/10/2003 [R- SC-4] Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/10/2003 [R- MO-2] Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 6/10/2003 [R- TX-26] Rep Norwood, Charlie - 6/10/2003 [R- GA-9] Rep King, Steve - 6/24/2003 [R- IA-5] Rep Isakson, Johnny - 6/24/2003 [R- GA-6] Rep Souder, Mark E. - 6/24/2003 [R- IN-3] Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 6/24/2003 [R- MN-6] Rep Miller, Jeff - 6/25/2003 [R- FL-1] Rep Lewis, Ron - 6/25/2003 [R- KY-2] Rep Hayes, Robin - 7/8/2003 [R- NC-8] Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 7/8/2003 [R- SC-3] Rep Burns, Max - 7/8/2003 [R- GA-12] Rep Collins, Mac - 7/8/2003 [R- GA-8] Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 7/8/2003 [R- AL-3] Rep Wamp, Zach - 7/8/2003 [R- TN-3] Rep Stenholm, Charles W. - 7/8/2003 [D-TX-17] Rep Hoekstra, Peter - 7/10/2003 [R- MI-2] Rep Brady, Kevin - 7/10/2003 [R- TX-8] Rep Whitfield, Ed - 7/10/2003 [R- KY-1] Rep Hunter, Duncan - 7/10/2003 [R- CA-52] Rep Doolittle, John T. - 7/10/2003 [R- CA-4] Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 7/10/2003 [R- SC-1] Rep Cantor, Eric - 7/10/2003 [R- VA-7] Rep Gingrey, Phil - 7/15/2003 [GA-11] Rep Davis, Lincoln - 7/15/2003 [D-TN-4] Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) - 7/15/2003 [R- MS-3] Rep Wicker, Roger F. - 7/15/2003 [R- MS-1] Rep Taylor, Gene - 7/17/2003 [D-MS-4] Rep Herger, Wally - 7/17/2003 [R- CA-2] Rep Sullivan, John - 7/22/2003 [R- OK-1] Rep Garrett, Scott - 7/22/2003 [R- NJ-5] Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) - 7/22/2003 [R- LA-3] Rep Cubin, Barbara - 7/22/2003 [R- WY] Rep Forbes, J. Randy - 7/23/2003 [R- VA-4] Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 7/23/2003 [R- NJ-4] Rep Schrock, Edward L. - 7/23/2003 [R- VA-2] Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 7/23/2003 [R- CA-11] Rep Hayworth, J. D. - 7/23/2003 [R- AZ-5] Rep Stearns, Cliff - 7/23/2003 [R- FL-6] Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) - 7/23/2003 [R- CA-50] Rep Pearce, Stevan - 7/23/2003 [R- NM-2] Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 7/23/2003 [R- IL-6] Rep Barton, Joe - 7/23/2003 [R- TX-6] Rep Boehner, John A. - 7/23/2003 [R- OH-8] Rep Gutknecht, Gil - 7/23/2003 [R- MN-1] Rep Peterson, John E. - 7/23/2003 [R- PA-5] Rep Tiahrt, Todd - 7/23/2003 [R- KS-4] Rep Franks, Trent - 7/23/2003 [R- AZ-2] Rep Carter, John R. - 7/24/2003 [R- TX-31] Rep Emerson, Jo Ann - 7/24/2003 [R- MO-8] Rep Chocola, Chris - 7/24/2003 [R- IN-2] Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 7/24/2003 [R- CA-46] Rep Crane, Philip M. - 7/24/2003 [R- IL-8] Rep Shuster, Bill - 7/24/2003 [R- PA-9] Rep Sessions, Pete - 7/24/2003 [R- TX-32] Rep Beauprez, Bob - 7/24/2003 [R- CO-7] Rep Ballenger, Cass - 7/25/2003 [R- NC-10] Rep Myrick, Sue - 7/25/2003 [R- NC-9] Rep Toomey, Patrick J. - 7/25/2003 [R- PA-15]

Rep Culberson, John Abney - 9/3/2003 [R-TX-7] Rep Manzullo, Donald A. - 9/3/2003 [R-IL-16] Rep Osborne, Tom - 9/3/2003 [R-NE-3] Rep Feeney, Tom - 9/3/2003 [R-FL-24] Rep Lucas, Ken - 9/3/2003 [D-KY-4] Rep Hart, Melissa A. - 9/3/2003 [R-PA-4] Rep Coble, Howard - 9/9/2003 [R-NC-6] Rep Calvert, Ken - 9/9/2003 [R-CA-44] Rep Turner, Michael R. - 9/9/2003 [R-OH-3] Rep Kingston, Jack - 9/10/2003 [R-GA-1] Rep Boozman, John - 9/10/2003 [R-AR-3]

Rep Goodlatte, Bob - 9/24/2003 [R-VA-6] Rep Alexander, Rodney - 9/24/2003 [D-LA-5] Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 9/24/2003 [R-CO-6] Rep Bachus, Spencer - 9/30/2003 [R-AL-6] Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 9/30/2003 [R-MI-11] Rep Rogers, Harold - 10/7/2003 [R-KY-5] Rep Flake, Jeff - 10/7/2003 [R-AZ-6] Rep Miller, Gary G. - 10/8/2003 [R-CA-42] Rep Aderholt, Robert B. - 10/8/2003 [R-AL-4] Rep Keller, Ric - 10/15/2003 [R-FL-8]

**** ACTION ALERT *****

**** If your Congresscritter is listed please call to THANK them..... if they are not please call/fax/write/email and ask them to please co-sponsor this bill...

Bush supports traditional marriage definition in issuing Marriage Protection proclamation

Congressional Directory

Link to - Bill Status HJR 56

David C. Osborne - Homepage

[davidosborne]

Passing it on.. if YOUR congresscritter is NOT listed please call them and ask them to get on board....

David

[kylaka]

Mine is on board as I knew he would be. Can't help but notice that the few "D's" listed are all way south of the Mason Dixon line.

[davidosborne]

Great !!... I don't understand the loyalty of the "Southern Democrats" who stick with a party where they are not well represented.... I know of many "democrats" who vote a straight Republican ticket but refuse to change party affiliation.... does that make sense to you?

[davidosborne]

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in House)


HJ 56 IH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 56
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 21, 2003
Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself, Mr. HALL, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

Article --

`SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.

[davidosborne]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.j.res.00056:

[E.G.C.]

Passing it on for you David. Good afternoon. How's it going?

[davidosborne]

HJ RES 56 is currently pending in this committee.. if you would like to see this bill move forward please contact the following Reps in addition to your own rep.

Subcommittee on the Constitution

Mr. Steve Chabot, Chairman (202) 225-2216 (202) 225-3012 (fax)

362 Ford HOB, Tel: 202-226-7680

Mr. King................ (202) 225-4426.... Fax: (202) 225-3193
Mr. Jerrold Nadler..... (202) 225-5635...
Mr. Jenkins............. (202) 225-6356..... Fax. (202) 225-5714
Mr. John Conyers...(202) 225-5126..... (202) 225-0072 Fax
Mr. Bachus..........202 225-4921....... 202 225-2082 fax
Mr. Robert Scott.. (202) 225-8351..... (202) 225-8354 Fax
Mr. Hostettler......(202) 225-4636...... FAX: (202) 225-3284
Mr. Melvin Watt.....(202) 225-1510.... Fax (202) 225-1512
Ms. Hart................202-225-2565........ Fx. 202-226-2274
Mr. Adam Schiff.......(202) 225-4176....... Facsimile: (202) 225-5828
Mr. Feeney........... (202) 225-2706...... fax:(202) 226-6299
Mr. Forbes........... 202-225-6365...... Fax: 202-226-1170

[davidosborne]

I am doing well thanks E.G.C. !!!

[Viva Le Dissention]

So why should I ask them to get on board?

This is just an embarrassment and yet another death blow to Federalism. I would think that the Republicans would be the ones leading the charge against this stupid thing, but they've long since sold out that antiquated concept of states' rights. Sigh.

Thank God they'll never get 2/3 members of both houses.

[kylaka]

Yes it does. Until very recently I was a regestered "D" who always voted republican. In a state with "closed" primaries, I could do more damage to the "D's" by voting for the weakest candidate like say Je$$ie. I switched only because of a recent crucial republican primary that required my vote.

[TheAngryClam]

There's Collin Peterson from Minnesota on there too.

[eleni121]

This is just an embarrassment and yet another death blow to Federalism.

Not an embarrassment at all since the courts have hijacked the people's desire for maintaining marriage between a man and a woman.

The oligarchy of the courts has forced the legislation process into the mix and rightfully the legislative arm of government has taken up the challenge as it has done in the past. It is the people who should be deciding or affirming these matters not the courts.

State's rights? What rights do states have when courts rule on social issues or any issues? None at all. You had better rethink your "states rights" position inlight of the transfer of power away from the legislative branches to the judicial branches.

[kylaka]

I missed that one.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Oh Lord, so the Court says that you can't prosecute gays for screwing each other, and this is tantamount in your mind to hijacking the people's desire to keep marriage between a man and a woman?

But look, if MA wants to have gay marriage, great. More power to them. If you don't like it, petition your legislature. If you REALLY don't like it, vote with your feet.

The traditional realm of States' rights is health, welfare, safety, and morals. Regulation of marriage certainly falls into that category. Even if you WANT to say that the Courts are "hijacking" the States, two wrongs certainly don't make a right. Your answer to the Courts hijacking States' rights is to have Congress hijack States' rights? Huh?

[davidosborne]

seee this thread......

MY RESPONSE TO THOSE FREEPERS WHO OPPOSE HJR 56... First and foremost this is NOT petty... it is critical in this day and age that we RE-AFFIRM our MORAL foundation. I AGREE with those opponents who are concerned that the U.S. Constitution should not have to be this SPECIFIC, ....HOWEVER, our JUSTICE system has failed us miserably... by equating a union of two people of the same sex to MARIAGE.... this is a HUGE step in destroying the MORAL foundation of our laws. I believe that by NOT passing this ammendment the effect will be exactly what some opponenets fear will occur if we DO pass it...... IMHO, it will encourage leftists to try to put their own crap into our laws using the judiciary, and taking advantage of its failure to ensure decisions are grounded in MORALITY........ This Ammendment will send the message LOUD AND CLEAR to our JUDICIARY that we WANT them to make decisions that are grounded in MORALITY and if they don't know what that is then WE THE PEOPLE will have to explain it to them in the CONSTITUTION!!!

[davidosborne]

But look, if MA wants to have gay marriage, great. More power to them. If you don't like it, petition your legislature. If you REALLY don't like it, vote with your feet.

This is not possible in that Marriage is a contract.... a contract in one state is binding in another.. that is why this is an important constitutional issue...

[davidosborne]

Thank God they'll never get 2/3 members of both houses.

Actually I thank God that you my FRiend are in the MINORITY on this issue.... I expect this to pass OVERWHELMINGLY ! Your "State's Rights" argument would be great if the Courts had not been legislating from the bench... this Ammendment is not a blow to State's Rights but rather a simple instruction to the courts, from the PEOPLE, to quit legislating period.....

[Viva Le Dissention]

So? I frankly don't see how this is a problem. I can make contract is plenty of states that are illegal in other states, but they are still enforceable.

Seriously, what's your point? That the threat of two men being married in MA and moving to GA is worth destroying the concept of Federalism in a constitutional amendment?